Yo Hal! On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:51:12 -0800 Hal Murray via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote:
> Gary said:
> > Yes, it is confisuing, that is why there way a proposal for a
> > different syntax that Eric vetoed. You are making the exact
> > mistake we foresaw. This will contoinue with the current syntax.
>
> Thanks. Now that I understand the ideas, I'll see if I can clean up
> the wording.
I'd prefer to clean up the config syntax...
> > Uh, no. Just the NTS-KE server name. The default NTP server name
> > is whatever the NTS-KE server returns. That is the Proposed RFC.
>
> That is optional.
If we want to be the canonical NTS-KE we need to implement it
all.
And only sort of optional. Notice the 'should' in there. Not sure
why it is not capitalized. Also a SHALL.
> From 4.1.7, page 12
>
> When NTPv4 is negotiated as a Next Protocol and this record is sent
> by the server, the body specifies the hostname or IP address of the
> NTPv4 server with which the client should associate and which will
> accept the supplied cookies. If no record of this type is sent, the
> client SHALL interpret this as a directive to associate with an NTPv4
> server at the same IP address as the NTS-KE server. Servers MUST NOT
> send more than one record of this type.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgp6MnenJXWJ4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
